Memory Beta talk:Plagiarism
Draft policy This is an explanation of the policy as enforced currently, this is not a new policy as the passage stating this was previously stated at project:style. This statement summarizes how many Wikia sites operate in general and the copyright laws involved are not necessarily negotiable. Our community exist on the basis of user input, so please, speak up and take part in discussing how our community approaches issues with users violating these laws. We can approach this policy on the basis of a community consensus instead of viewing it as a unilateral decision. In the interests of openness, I approached two other active administrators the last time this policy was violated so that it did not appear as if I was making a unilateral decision, and took their input when enforcing the violation. However, some users are confused and don't realize that proper steps were taken in attempting to conmmunicate with them about their violation of this pre-existing policy. -- Captain MKB 12:49, March 27, 2010 (UTC) :The policy is indeed what we already enforce, so I have no quibbles with the current text. If anything I would seek to expand it to stop any sort of copying at all, the current text is careful to make it clear we cannot for legal reasons copy from CBS owned properties or memory alpha for legal reasons, but I think we should add Wikipedia and any other non-editor generated content to that list for moral and compatibility reasons. :One question: Our Captain's log pages lift significant blocks of text from books and such, which is something I've been silently troubled by for some time, but never bothered to raise it before. How does this policy effect those pages? --8of5 17:04, March 27, 2010 (UTC) ::A lot of stuff like that is used on MA, and a point is made to refer to where it came from and noting that it is used/quoted from there. -- sulfur 00:34, March 28, 2010 (UTC) ::I think it is the same as our image routine, where we won't necessarily show an entire page from a comic, nor will we post an entire episode video, but we will crop single comic panels or show screencaps. We aren't giving the whole thing away, we're using a fraction and calling it fair use. Wikipedia uses this rationale for images, specifying that low-resolution images are not reproducible compared to the quality of the original, therefore are not giving away the total value of the source. -- Captain MKB 00:40, March 28, 2010 (UTC) :I'm new, so I don't know if I can split comments to address the other part. I'll play it safe. I'm responding to 8of5's first paragraph. :I understand not doing anything illegal, but I don't understand why it would be immoral to copy anything from a place that explicitly allows copying, like Wikipedia. I know when I visited before, I noticed a lot of articles were missing summaries, and even the short ones from Wikipedia are better than nothing. It really doesn't feel right to recommend an encyclopedia that has huge gaps. --C64 07:16, March 28, 2010 (UTC) I see it morally questionable because of this rationale: Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. To throw in a real world example, if you're British or follow British politics at all you'll be aware of the recent fuss about MPs claiming excessive expenses; barring a handful of extreme cases most MPs were operating within the letter of the law, what they did was not technically wrong, but, it was morally questionable to stretch that law as they did. I see copying someone else's work in a similar vain; we might technically be allowed to take a summary from wikipedia, but I don't think we should, it isn't our work, it wasn't written in the knowledge it would end up here. --8of5 13:58, March 28, 2010 (UTC) Trial bans For users that communicate negatively when informed about our policy, I'd like to discuss a trial ban with a predetermined length period to remove the user from the site while the damage is removed. Basically, while we ban users for transgressions, the ban period is usually determined by the active admin, and varies depending on situation. One mistake I've made is to not ban users violating policy. The last user I warned shrugged off the warning and became disruptive, so my main mistake was not having an authoritative ban/block immediately, instead they've been allowed to take advantage of this openness for further disruptive behavior. -- Captain MKB 12:54, March 27, 2010 (UTC) :I'd suggest a warning system first. This works reasonably well on other wikis I've been on. In short, they get a warning, but if the warning (more or less) overlaps with another edit, that edit does not get treated as breaking the warning. Generally, a one-day (or shorter) block has worked for us on MA, with text suggesting that they read their talk page and respond there, and the ban will be removed, etc. -- sulfur 13:43, March 27, 2010 (UTC) ::I agree with Sulfur, we should always users a chance, for every disruptive user I'm sure there are many more who make genuine mistakes or are simply unaware of a particular policy. --8of5 17:04, March 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Concur with Sulfur as well, for as much as it counts. I'd actually push for being nice first, though, as being heavy handed can anger people and actually make them be worse later. You've got to keep that balance, being both nice and firm. --C64 07:16, March 28, 2010 (UTC) :::Since other admins have commented here, I leave it to them to add to the policy a suggested block process, just so that it isn't misconstrued as a unilateral decision. Even though I started this section of the conversation, I have full confidence of the community's judgment in defining this part of the policy. -- Captain MKB 05:49, March 29, 2010 (UTC) :On MA, the "policy" is that we give people a warning on their talk page. If the behaviour continues, then the user will get a 1 or 3hr ban (depending on which button gets hit :) ). If the user responds on their talk page and confirms that they know what's going on, understand their mistake, etc, then the ban gets lifted. I'd suggest this as a starting point for the policy. I've found it effective to use for most all circumstances. -- sulfur 12:52, March 29, 2010 (UTC) ::How does the MA 'policy' effect the outcome when the behavior is on a talk page, specifically when communicating to one another on certain issues? I'll just toss this out there, people jump on and start discussing policy on issues, even though they may not be that involved in editing, their conduct is civil, then their items are removed or moved simply because they are not considered 'members'. Seems wrong to disregard a third party just because they have not done work here. Even in politics it takes a third party to mediate issues to have them resolved. not that im trying to get involved in this little thing, but i do find it amusing that people are jumping into this.... anyways im gonna get back to these two articles im working on. Good day and long life. -- Admiral Yates 13:35, March 29, 2010 (UTC) :Seems wrong for someone who has no stake in how this site operates to walk in and dictate policy too. How would you feel if a new user signed on and asked that you be banned from using this site? Wouldn't it be rude of us to disregard that person's opinion? -- Captain MKB 13:38, March 29, 2010 (UTC) :: I saw no one come in here and dictate policy, just offer their own opinions on a matter. as for what ever is happening on your talk page.. well what do you expect when you start calling people trolls, im just saying there was a better way to handle that situation, as well as all other comments posted on your talk page. -- Admiral Yates 13:42, March 29, 2010 (UTC) I've added a passage about bans, short and long term, per the discussion above. And on the subject of warnings: Admiral Yates please be very careful with how you put your point across, in the context you used it, "what do you expect", begins to sound a lot like a threat. By all means feel free to discuss any issues you might have, but do not use intimidation tactics, they will not be tolerated. --8of5 17:02, March 29, 2010 (UTC) :Sorry mate, thats not how it was intended. If seen in the context on a user, we saw a very.. hostile individual making insults. the "What did you expect" was more of a shake of the head gesture. Sorry for the misconception. -- Admiral Yates 17:05, March 29, 2010 (UTC) Applications to other namespaces I think it should be generally understood that plagiarism applies to all areas of the wiki, perhaps policy should clarify this -- for example, you cannot copy other sources copyrighted bodies of text onto you user page or a subpage of such. -- Captain MKB 21:02, March 28, 2010 (UTC) :Personally if a person is going to copy text onto their userpage and their userpage subpages then that person should clarify where said text comes from, But if they are trying to bring all relevant information into one area so they can rework and create a document with the information gathered into that spot. True the information may be plagiarism, but if they are rewriting said work to fit their needs, then should it not be acceptable for them to make the edits on their user subpages? And i am sure its not so much to ask that if requested a 'admin' or someone like you mike can go over the finished documentation and flag anything wrong with it or items you would like to see changed. Besides im sure all of us have lives outside of this site. Is it that wrong for a individual to bring all relevant information to one area on their personal pages to rework and create into something else on their own time? True the history may still be their of what they were doing. But thats like saying someone committed plagiarism by copying text to their notes for future use or to be reworked into their projects. If a University professor asked for all your notes on the project you created and handed into him would he accuse you of plagiarism? Or are the Userpages and the subpages of those user pages not to be used to work on projects? : -- Admiral Yates 22:25, March 28, 2010 (UTC) :I am not saying i condone Plagiarism, im saying that to bring all relevant to one spot to work with is preferable to continually searching for the information when the person is working on the project in their own time. -- Admiral Yates 22:35, March 28, 2010 (UTC) ::The problem is that, no matter where you post information on this site, it is completely visible to the entire internet in general. The history of edits is visible to the entire internet in general. So it is just as much a violation of laws and policies no matter if it is a user page, talk page, or article page. It's still plagiarism. If you need a body of text as a source, you can use it as your source, but you can't enter it anywhere on this site. ::If you need notes for your university paper, you wouldn't copy and republish a copyrighted book for the whole world to see. You'd read the text and write your own interpretation without making copies for broadcast to other students. Your userpage can be used to work on a project, but you are not allowed to post plagiarized sections from other works. -- Captain MKB 23:15, March 28, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah, Mike pretty much covered the reasons why plagiarised materials shouldn't be allowed anywhere on the wiki and it sounds fine to me.--Long Live the United Earth 21:11, March 29, 2010 (UTC) Hmm, so, I agree with Mike; is this sufficiently covered by the current policy or do we need to propose an update (ie. can this discussion be taken off the active policy discussion list at the top of the recent edits page yet?)--8of5 09:59, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia I would be interested in adding a clause that suggests that while it is technically allowable to copy from wikipedia due to the licensing that we would prefer users not to owing to formatting and point-of-view issues. Thoughts?--8of5 09:59, June 28, 2010 (UTC)